Big Guy Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) Bad news - Pension solvency declines for first time since 2012. Good news - On average, Canadian retirees are living two to three years longer than those in the USA. http://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/2014/10/02/pension_plan_solvency_declines_in_third_quarter_aon_hewitt.html What does it mean to a pensioner when his/her plan is considered "solvent" and what changes should there be? What does it mean to a pensioner when his/her plan is considered " not solvent" and "underfunded" What changes should there be? Edited October 3, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 What changes should there be? Somebody has to put more money into the plan. Defined benefit plans are simply going to vanish. People are living beyond the ability of the plans to pay. Nobody can afford them except government, and even that option will vanish soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) And yet 15% more of them are fully funded than this time last year. A 1% raise in interest rates would bring a lot more of them back. The problem these plans face is no different from individuals who are trying to save for retirement or live off of investments. Their money earns next to nothing outside of the stock market. Edited October 3, 2014 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Their money earns next to nothing outside of the stock market. Of course. But why should it be out of the stock market? The stock market just had one of the biggest bull runs in history... a threefold increase in 5 years. Of course if people sat on the sidelines during that they missed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Of course. But why should it be out of the stock market? The stock market just had one of the biggest bull runs in history... a threefold increase in 5 years. Of course if people sat on the sidelines during that they missed out. It shouldn't be out of the market but neither should it have to rely too heavily on it Any financial advisor will stress the importance of diversity and that is doubly important for pension plans that have to provide income regardless of market conditions. The market goes up and down but pension plan obligations don't go away when the market has a bad year or two. Even though I have done quite well in stocks the past few years, at my age there is no way I would commit the same percentage of my capital to the market as I did when I was younger. Of those I have very few that don't pay dividends and quite a few pref shares that I bought when they were still reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) It shouldn't be out of the market but neither should it have to rely too heavily on it Any financial advisor will stress the importance of diversity and that is doubly important for pension plans that have to provide income regardless of market conditions. The market goes up and down but pension plan obligations don't go away when the market has a bad year or two. Even though I have done quite well in stocks the past few years, at my age there is no way I would commit the same percentage of my capital to the market as I did when I was younger. Of those I have very few that don't pay dividends and quite a few pref shares that I bought when they were still reasonable. A pension plan is something that is supposed to be solvent and averaged over decades, with a continuous balance of contributions of payments. The best way to maximize returns over decadal time periods is the stock market. Pension schemes should hold enough money in cash / cash-equivalents to fulfill near-term obligations (i.e. a couple years) and should hold the rest of their capital in ETFs that track broad indices like the S&P500. Pension plans should never be so near the brink that a market crash means they can't pay out their obligations, or they've already failed. Edited October 4, 2014 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 A pension plan is something that is supposed to be solvent and averaged over decades, with a continuous balance of contributions of payments. The best way to maximize returns over decadal time periods is the stock market. Pension schemes should hold enough money in cash / cash-equivalents to fulfill near-term obligations (i.e. a couple years) and should hold the rest of their capital in ETFs that track broad indices like the S&P500. Pension plans should never be so near the brink that a market crash means they can't pay out their obligations, or they've already failed. Up until recently, by law, defined benefit plans could not be more than 10% overfunded. In 08 the markets dropped 20%. That combined with record low interest rates since 08 left many plans that were fully funded before the crash in a badly underfunded condition. They still had to pay out benefits as they tried to dig themselves out that hole. Since then, the government has upped the over funding limit but that doesn't do anything for plans that found themselves underfunded due to the market 08 massacre and subsequent low rates. Registered plans are also required to be diversified and there are restrictions on how much they can put in any one basket and limits on the percentage of any one company's stock they can own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Up until recently, by law, defined benefit plans could not be more than 10% overfunded. Sounds like a dumb law. How can you make something that promises to provide a continuous benefit and allow only a 10% safety margin? That's just unrealistic and anyone with a rudimentary grasp of economics would know as much. Not that I'm surprised at there being dumb laws or anything. In 08 the markets dropped 20%. That combined with record low interest rates since 08 left many plans that were fully funded before the crash in a badly underfunded condition. They still had to pay out benefits as they tried to dig themselves out that hole. Since then, the government has upped the over funding limit but that doesn't do anything for plans that found themselves underfunded due to the market 08 massacre and subsequent low rates. From 2009 to 2014, the market tripled. One of the strongest bull markets in history. If the plan managers couldn't "dig themselves out of their hole" in that kind of environment, they shouldn't be managing any kind of plans. Registered plans are also required to be diversified and there are restrictions on how much they can put in any one basket and limits on the percentage of any one company's stock they can own. That's fine. Invest in broad indices. That's the safest and usually best strategy anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Sounds like a dumb law. How can you make something that promises to provide a continuous benefit and allow only a 10% safety margin? That's just unrealistic and anyone with a rudimentary grasp of economics would know as much. Not that I'm surprised at there being dumb laws or anything. From 2009 to 2014, the market tripled. One of the strongest bull markets in history. If the plan managers couldn't "dig themselves out of their hole" in that kind of environment, they shouldn't be managing anykind of plans. That's fine. Invest in broad indices. That's the safest and usually best strategy anyway. It was a dumb law but the government didn't want to watch all that money go into plans and give up the tax revenue. Plan managers can't dump all the money into the market. Plan managers didn't just start investing in stocks in 09. The stocks they did hold took a big hit in 08 and they had to recover that loss before they could start taking advantage of th bull market. It took me two years to recover and start making money again. All that time they were still having to pay out benefits. Edited October 4, 2014 by Charles Anthony deleted doubled quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Does "solvency" mean that there is enough money in the fund to pay off everybody in the fund if they all retired to-day? What does it mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Does "solvency" mean that there is enough money in the fund to pay off everybody in the fund if they all retired to-day? What does it mean? Got this explanation from CBC's site. 3. What is the difference between “solvency” and “going concern”? When an actuarial valuation of the plan is performed, the actuary is required to provide opinions on the financial condition of the plan and on the contributions required to be made to the plan on the basis of two different scenarios: (1) that the plan will be a going concern and will not terminate; and (2) that the plan has terminated at the review date. In support of his or her opinions, the actuary prepares a going concern valuation based on the first assumption and solvency valuation based on the second Solvency valuation assumes that the plan suddenly stops operating as of the valuation date. It is intended to test whether the plan has sufficient assets to pay all benefits that have been earned by members to that date. Going concern valuation looks at the plan’s funded status on the basis that the plan will continue to operate indefinitely. The purpose of a going concern valuation is to recommend the orderly funding of a plan to accumulate assets to provide for the plan’s benefits in advance of their actual payment. Where a plan’s liabilities exceed its assets, the plan sponsor is obliged to make special payments to the plan sufficient to amortize the deficit over a certain period of time. Of course these valuations are just snap shots depending on the economic and market conditions at that time. That is why they are done annually. Many plans that had funding ratios tanking to the low 80% range back in 09 and 10, at the end of last year were back in mid to high nineties and some are fully funded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I fully expect my provincial pension - if I live to receive it - to be reduced in the future. Everybody should make that assumption and plan to supplement their pension with their own funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 5, 2015 Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 A pension plan is something that is supposed to be solvent and averaged over decades, with a continuous balance of contributions of payments. The best way to maximize returns over decadal time periods is the stock market. Pension schemes should hold enough money in cash / cash-equivalents to fulfill near-term obligations (i.e. a couple years) and should hold the rest of their capital in ETFs that track broad indices like the S&P500. Pension plans should never be so near the brink that a market crash means they can't pay out their obligations, or they've already failed. Have you read Flash Boys by Michael Lewis? You should. It is an entertaining and terrifying account of the US stock market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 5, 2015 Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 Why can't we just borrow money to top up CPP whenever it looks al ittle shaky? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2015 Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 Why can't we just borrow money to top up CPP whenever it looks al ittle shaky? Because then it wouldn't be a real pension plan and you would just be adding to the federal debt. Then, future generations would be paying for those benefits forever because our governments don't pay off debt, they just continue to service it by paying interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.